How companies should talk about climate change—no matter who wins the U.S. election

illuminem summarizes for you the essential news of the day. Read the full piece on TIME News or enjoy below:

🗞️ Driving the news: With a polarized U.S. election ahead, companies are being advised to focus on financial and operational impacts of climate change rather than ethical appeals
• Research from We Mean Business Coalition and Potential Energy Coalition shows consumers favor messaging centered on the tangible business effects of climate action

🔭 The context: Historically, companies have used “do the right thing” language around climate action, which often garners mixed reactions
• Current research reveals that discussing climate action as a “material” business need, such as addressing risks from extreme weather or accessing growth markets is more broadly accepted and minimizes backlash

🌍 Why it matters for the planet: A focus on material business impacts can foster wider corporate commitment to climate action, appealing across political divides
• Framing climate efforts this way could enhance resilience and drive investment in clean energy and climate-resilient infrastructure

⏭️ What's next: If Trump wins, companies may face heightened scrutiny over ESG practices, making financial rationale crucial for defending climate initiatives
• Under a Harris administration, materiality-based language would still appeal to policymakers wary of added costs

💬 One quote: “If you position it as a morality issue...you’re going to impress a lot of people, and you’re going to upset a lot of people,” - John Marshall, CEO of Potential Energy

📈 One stat: Over 75% of American voters believe companies should take action on climate change, yet nearly half report being more receptive to corporate messaging that emphasizes business impacts over moral appeals

Click for more news covering the latest on corporate sustainability